|

A new indication that the high court might not want to rule against ObamaCare mandate?

Yesterday, I noted HERE that veteran court-watcher Lyle Denniston thought it was “decidely premature” to predict that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act will not pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

Denniston said that Justice Anthony Kennedy had subtly indicated some flexibility on the mandate question and might try to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to join him in a 6-3 majority upholding the ACA in its entirety. Under those circumstances, Roberts likely would write the prevailing opinion.

And now Denniston SAYS this morning’s hearing offered further evidence that the high court may want to sustain the act, if only to avoid certain hassles:

The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that.  A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress.  They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform.  The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.

Share:

2 Comments

  1. Neftali

    So Denniston is saying that even though the mandate may be unconstitutional, the justice will let it stand because they are lazy.

    Really?

    End the end, the court doesn’t care about the financial affects to the country (or at least it shouldn’t) They should only care if the law enacted by Congress and signed by the President passes the Constitutional muster. The simple fact is that the rest of the stuff in the bill is perfectly legit. (well…I have other issues with it, but its at least legal) Its just the mandate that sucks, and the debate is that if that is enough to throw out the entire thing.

  2. Neftali

    err….the “Justices”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>